Excellent Debate From the Atheist Experience...
tags:
Stumble ThisFirst of a five part debate between Matt Dillhunty of the Atheist Experience cable access show and Matt Slick regarding the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG).
There's a lot of great stuff here and it really is worth watching the whole debate - a lot of basic philosophy and logic is employed and it's fun to watch Slick get flustered. It's obvious that he has been able to fluster a good number of atheists with this schtick but Matt pins him down and it's great to watch him struggle as he gets caught a number of contradictions and logical fallacies.
Enjoy.
There's a lot of great stuff here and it really is worth watching the whole debate - a lot of basic philosophy and logic is employed and it's fun to watch Slick get flustered. It's obvious that he has been able to fluster a good number of atheists with this schtick but Matt pins him down and it's great to watch him struggle as he gets caught a number of contradictions and logical fallacies.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DDA4661AC27815DA
Asking for a third option between "conceptual or physical" is comparing apples to oranges. That is, unless conceptual is non-physical and non-conceptual is physical, which is not necessarily true according to the host's argument (because of the definition of "conceptual" meaning "of the mind").
One could say that there is a third option available between physical and non-physical, that being the idea of "null" or "unknown" or "undefined", but it could then be argued that just because it isn't known to us doesn't mean that it isn't "known" to someone, something else, or to the universe.
Fun video until the caller stopped listening and stopped considering the host's points. I'm impressed with the way they sling terminology around... they obviously did well in ancient philosophy.
he sees the word logic to mean 'to reason something' rather than that things in the universe can simply run in a logical order. they should have slowed down and simplified the argument without the terminology perhaps then the reason for the disagreement would be obvious.
1. In precisely the same way that "not A" is not equal to "B", "non contingent" does not equal "physical", but just because we can't list everything that it does equal doesn't invalidate our claim - it only means we don't know.
2. I don't like the way they used "mind". Personally I think brain would be a better word, as I am a monoist.